Judgment 1. This application in revision by members of the second party arises out of a proceeding under Sec. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, the petitioners and the opposite party, who were members of the first party in the Court below, have got their houses contiguous to each other; the house of the petitioners being to the north of that of the opposite party. The case of the opposite party was that the water of their courtyard used to emanate through a drain towards the north, and, after taking a turn towards the east, used to fall in a pyne; but it was stopped by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, was that the water of the courtyard of the opposite party did not use to fall towards the north, but towards the south. Both parties adduced evidence before the Magistrate, and he also held local inspection. He found that the case of the opposite party was true, and has, accordingly, directed the petitioners not to interfere with the flow of the drain water of the opposite party. The opposite party too have been directed to construct a pucca drain for the flow of the water, as claimed by them, and to keep it clean so that there may not be any inconvenience to the petitioners. 2. The only question of substance, which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners, is that, as according to the opposite party, the water of the drain used to flow on their own land, it was not a case of user and the proceeding under Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was misconceived. Opposite Party No. 1 Sibu Choudhary, who examined himself as First Party Witness No. 3, has stated in his evidence that his drain used to flow through his own land and he had never any concern with the lands of Feku (petitioner No. 1). It would thus appear that the opposite party claimed to have been using the land as an incident of ownership. The term user used in Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure connotes user by way of legal right, but distinct from the use of the land as an owner. It would thus appear that the opposite party claimed to have been using the land as an incident of ownership. The term user used in Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure connotes user by way of legal right, but distinct from the use of the land as an owner. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the words "whether such right be claimed as an easement or otherwise" were not there in the section before the amendment of the year 1923, and there was divergence of opinion between the High Court of Calcutta and the High Court of Madras as to the meaning of the term "user". According to the High Court of Calcutta, the section had no application to rights not resembling easement, whereas according to the High Court of Madras, the section was wide enough to apply to cases of right to perform Puja in temple or to rights acquired by contract, or similar other rights. By inserting the aforesaid words in the section, the legislature gave effect to the Madras view. Now the section, as it stands, covers cases of right of user even by grant or custom which are not necessarily rights of easement; but, nonetheless, as observed earlier, the right must be distinct from the user of the land as an owner. Where a person claims enjoyment of some right on his own land and that right is obstructed or disputed, it is really a dispute with regard to the land itself, and the proper proceeding in such a case is a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3 For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the proceeding under Sec.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was uncalled for, and the order passed by the Magistrate must be quashed. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order of the Magistrate is set aside.